A peek ahead to 2013

So in conclusion, I fully disagree with you that we have to take a Running back in the first 2 rounds next year. We won one with Starks in 2010, I don't see why we couldn't again. Like I said above- Great running backs do not equate to success. Would one help us? Yeah probably. Win us a Super Bowl? Not likely if history has any meaning

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. Usually the first or second round gives you a better chance of landing a protypical back. Nothing is fool proof but the position is very much lacking especially since Benson is almost 3o years old already. Starks has been injury prone and Green has potential except for the fact he falls sideways and backwards more than forwards.

Maybe a RB pick as low as third but since the Pack usually picks at the tail end of the rounds, a fourth round back is somewhere past the 130th pick. The odds decrease of getting a stud that low.

According to the names you provided me of the last 9 Super Bowl winners with their top 2 rushers is 18 names, 7 were undrafted and 3 were taken in the first round. I know where I want Ted to target a running back next year. The fact is A running back is not a smart way to use a draft pick, especially early. Every fact points to it, the difference between running backs in the draft from top to bottom (or in this case not in the draft at all) are very slim.

I see your post wasn't directly arguing running backs and the draft but I got the feeling you meant to get help in the running game through the draft, early. At the very least this was just a expansion on my last comment with your information and my take on it. Disregard if so.

Click to expand...

Actually it was directed to people who don't think RB's matter anymore in the new "Passing league". The point is every top passer who went on to win a Super Bowl had some help with some decent backs. Drafted or not, it does not matter. But it makes it easier to win if you have one. The list I provided is just the top two RB's and their numbers from each team. Some had 3 or 4 with over 2500 yards per year. Fact is, you can't win just on passing alone. If you notice the numbers in the second list, the number of yards appears to be going down. When I get the chance I will go back prior to 96 and see if the numbers are higher in the past.

The biggest problem I see with not having a good running game is it makes the play action pass less effective. Because the defense's can key on the pass first knowing that the run won't kill them. I didn't see the Packer/Jags game but I would be willing to bet that the Jags did well against the Packers play action plays.